Re: [Marnew] endpoint consent

[Dirk Kutscher <[e-mail]>]

Fully agree.

Fine-grained control, being difficult to use correctly by endpoints, seems to boil down to in-network traffic classification.

IMO, a simpler model, with the right incentives for endpoint adaptability, is more likely to see successful deployment.

Regarding the trust discussion, I'd first like to see a list of necessary functions that need to be trusted. If it's just coarse-grained traffic management and perhaps caching, there is not that much explicit consent and trust needed.

Best regards,
DIrk


-----Original Message-----
From: Marnew [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Donnerstag, 24. September 2015 06:58
To: Aaron Falk
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Marnew] endpoint consent

One challenge is of course that it is already difficult for the users (or even us experts) to understand all the exact things that are going on, so providing a useful control for the users even on bandwidth may not be easy.
Let alone more complex settings.

The other issue is that we should be careful about setting the ambition level.
Fine-grained quality of service treatment has not been successful in the Internet. What's the right ambition level, being able to specify detailed bandwidth consumption rules? Or the ability to differentiate interactive from the non-interactive within one user? The more coarse grained you make this, the more likely it is that it can be used by applications and understood by users.

Jari